16 minute read
Het Nieuwe Instituut
Student life is much more than just studying. As a student, you are not busy with one subject every minute of the day. A lot can be done in terms of personal development, which does not necessarily have to be academic. Stud, the Delft student employment agency, gives students the opportunity to develop themselves alongside their studies and be ready for the business world! How does Stud do this?
1. Internship or work student
Advertisement
Have you gained work experience alongside your studies? That is a nice bonus on your CV! A student might initially think of an internship, but you can also look at becoming a working student. As a working student, instead of an internship fee, you get a high hourly wage. When looking for a job as a working student, you can also look more specifically at what kind of job and what function you want to hold. Whereas as an intern, you will often be broadly employable.
2. Develop your own programmes.
We all use it in architecture. Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, AutoCAD, Rhino and Enscape. Every architectural company wants you to have a good command of these programmes. To develop yourself in these programmes, Stud offers you a free course! You are eligible for this if you have a job with Stud!
3. Borrow less money during your student years
Studying is simply expensive. Stud makes self-development for students accessible and accessible. Sponsorships, the Stud Fund, Stu-D study places and Stud Academy lectures make it fun and cheap for you to develop yourself alongside your studies in Delft.
In short: Stud offers students the opportunity to develop themselves alongside their studies! This is done by offering work-study jobs and by facilitating free courses/training for Stud employees.
Interested? Come along or call 015 792 00 18! www.stud.nl
JOIN US
YOUR ADVERTISMENT HERE? CONTACT US AT pantheon@stylos.nl
May 2122. The fi rst 100 story canal house of Delft reaches its highest point. Champagne is symbolically popped as a ritual performed by the victors, who by now go through life on a zero-alcohol diet. Vague noises 300 meters below can’t be diff erentiated between applause or protest. “At this height, you can’t even see their misery!” a contractor shouts.
According to Vitruvius, the 3 pillars on which architecture is built are fi rmitas, utilitas, and venustas. Strength, functionality, beauty. Decades of architectural debate only emphasise the struggle humanity has went through to determine the ratio between these aspects of building, yet the debate has still not settled. Utilitas/venustas. Functionality/ beauty. Opposite worlds, or is the only confl ict in the minds of the creators?
In the 21st century more than ever, eff orts are being made to preserve certain local architectural styles. Cities with historic city centres often implement policies to keep their visual distinction, their identity. It is this identity crisis the entire world struggles with. In the 21st century more than ever, globalisation dictates the lives humans live. With now more than half of the world’s population living in cities, and the cities being catalysts for intellectual development, the most distinguishing properties of societies are now shared and destroyed. In the 21st century more than ever, the world’s local architecture styles are molten into an even alloy. New York, London, Frankfurt, Rotterdam - Beijing, Moscow, Dubai, Bangkok. For the fi rst time ever, even the most opposing faces of the world have morphed into one. Within the works of an abundance of architects around the world, visual-contextual accuracy is appreciated as a critical fi rst step which buildings must make, in order to be accepted by the public. A new building is often in one way or another visually similar to its surroundings. Whether through materiality, or form, even the most innovative of designs grace their surroundings in an act of friendliness.
Despite the world’s eff orts, globalisation is irreversible and undeniable. The western world supplies most of the architects, however it is developing countries like China in which the most commissions are situated1. Off -site research is now available through digital alternatives, and air travel is no longer exclusive to the rich. It is this cross boundary working that is also accountable for evening out the diff erences between cultures. With the current emphasis on preservation of identity, but a world economy that is built on the opposite, visual-contextual accuracy can be seen as a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to counter this equalisation. If the three dimensions of form do not off er enough distinguishment, perhaps a fourth dimension provides a solution.
A dimension that is too often overlooked by the fi eld of architecture is one that physicists have been treating as a spatial dimension for decennia. Time itself will always be true. If identity is what brings satisfaction to people, time is where characteristic diff erences between temporal cultures can be found. If todays generation is homogeneous, tomorrow’s generation will be homogeneous in a new way, provided that a global architectural culture is admitted to be true.
What brings the most discomfort to people is that the world will look the same in every corner, however, it is no secret that Rome was never built in one day. The beloved classical city centre is appreciated for its uniqueness, a uniqueness that stands for a time, now past. The architects at the time probably never persuaded a city built in one style in order to avoid resembling Carthage. The architects at the time simply built according to their own rules. Firmitas kept together, utilitas brought relevance, venustas captivated. On the contrary, the current face of the city of Paris was built within 20 years, and is also more recognisable than any city on earth. This rapid facelift lead to Paris now carrying the title of the City of love, to which 30 million tourists still travel each year. But the city that was used to constant development saw a development that was truly inconsistent with its history, its culture. For the fi rst time ever, preservation blocked Paris from evolving further. After the divisive backlash that followed the construction of Tour Montparnasse, building heights were capped to 37 meters. Ultimate beauty became Paris’ paradoxical curse.
Artwork: Luka Jonker
With the amount of emphasis on identity, it is worth shedding a light on why identity is praised in the fi rst place. Politicians have been arguing (making an argument) about establishing identifying culture for millennia. On the foundations of nationalism, populists have used architecture as a political weapon. The question still remains: does this actually lead to more enjoyable and human buildings? The architectural debate is one that stands separate from the public debate, yet buildings will always be built in the living environments of humans beyond the users. Democracy allows for everyone to have an opinion on this confl ict, however, the weight of each may diff er depending on the persons knowledge. Perhaps the confl ict means that sacrifi ce/satisfaction are truly each others opposites. They are incompatible. Perhaps it does not matter whether they are incompatible. Architects have been known to overanalyse things. Perhaps, there is no confl ict. //
Source: Koolhaas, R. L. (2016, November 6). Current Preoccupations [Lecture]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCs7L6Gc8ZI
In light of the #MeToo movement, the public has focused its attention on the questionable acts of celebrities and authority figures, ranging from musicians and actors to politicians. Not unexpectedly, artists are not exempt from this; a lot of celebrated artists such as Picasso, Dalí and Gauguin have done morally corrupt deeds during their lifetimes. The question then rings: is it possible to enjoy the art of an artist while simultaneously disapproving of their morals and actions?
To this day, Salvador Dalí (1904-1989) and Pablo Picasso (18811973) remain known amongst the most prominent artists of all time. Their art is exhibited all over the globe in special exhibitions to honour them and their art pieces are worth an immeasurable sum of money that only increases as time goes by. It is irrefutable that they have played pivotal roles in art history and have made a great impact on artists and nonartists alike.
However, to many people’s standards both Dalí and Picasso can be classified as disgusting human beings. To illustrate, Salvador Dalí has displayed unwavering support for Hitler and Picasso was an avid misogynist who abused and preyed on women. That is not to say that these artists do not have artistic talent. On the contrary, if their artistic merit was not appreciated on a grand scale, they would not have received the recognition that they possess nowadays. That being said, it is necessary to realize that these artworks were made by people that possess these problematic beliefs and that it may have impacted the way their art has taken shape. Art is a manner of expression and can therefore be deeply personal, to the extent that it becomes inseparable from its creator, as the art becomes an extension of oneself. The problem is as follows: if you have grown an attachment to your own perceptions of a person and their art/craft, can that still be separated from the artist themselves once said artist has done or expressed something against your own set of principles? Should we still be praising these people for their contributions to art history whilst neglecting their pasts as human beings?
- Pablo Picasso
This all boils down to the inherent harm in glorifying other people, because at the end of the day a person’s true nature can very well be hidden from the rest of the world. This applies to famous people as well as people that we meet in our daily lives. We view celebrities and historical figures through a lens handed to us; hence what they are truly like is unbeknownst to us in most cases. For artists, their art becomes their legacy. As a result, their art becomes defining for our perception of them as people, whether good or bad.
Naturally, it is up to the individual to decide whether they are able to overlook a person’s deeds to admire the creations of said person. So there is not a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer to this conundrum; the question at hand is far too convoluted for that. Nonetheless, the answer can be broken down into the factors that may have solidified the choice of the individual.
Firstly, we can ask ourselves: what happens when the artist is deceased? The artist does not directly profit from the success thrust upon them and is not there to experience the glory of it. When we buy the albums of problematic musicians or buy merchandise of famous artworks by problematic artists, they themselves do not receive any of the money. Does that make it more acceptable to admire their art than if those artists were alive? For me, that severely depends on how evidently their personal values shine through their art. For example, I cannot and am unwilling to endorse in anything created by the French painter Paul Gauguin (18481903), whose self-portrait is shown on the left, as his actions repulse me and they are evident in most of his paintings. Gauguin left his wife and five children behind and travelled to Tahiti, where it has been documented that he took two ‘brides’, between the ages of 13 and 15, both of whom he has allegedly transmitted syphilis to. He made numerous nude portraits of his underage wives, such as in his painting Nevermore (1897). Simply said, he is a paedophile who takes advantage of his position.
Conveniently, a lot of this is left out of his biography on Britannica, which was written by Douglas Cooper, where his supposed interest in the authentic aspects of the Tahitian culture is repeatedly mentioned instead. Although he is dead, I find it impossible to separate his paintings from his deeds as the paintings were clearly made through his (predatory and colonialist) eyes. So, the extent to which their art reflects their actions is undeniably one of the main factors that can determine the weight of the artist’s actions in the eyes of the individual. Especially when the artist has passed away, since active support for the artist through monetary means does not physically take place.
Secondly, the form of art matters. It can be debated that painters, sculptors, dancers and musicians have more creative freedom than architects, even though architecture can also definitely be regarded as a form of artistic expression. That is mainly due to the strenuous process correlated to the creation of a building; it often involves a lot of time and a lot of people. Most of the time, architects are commissioned to design buildings in a certain way for a particular purpose by a client, which drastically lowers the architect’s authority within the creative process. Therefore, their personal values may have been displayed in a subdued manner in their art, causing architecture to seem less personal than other forms of art. But that does not mean that there is lack of controversy concerning architects.
A famous architect that we all know and (maybe not so much) love is Le Corbusier (1887-1965), a notable figure within modern architecture and an inspiration to many architects. In 2015, three French books were released addressing Le Corbusier’s fascism; Un Corbusier by François Chaslin, Le Corbusier, un fascisme Français by Xavier de Jarcy and Le Corbusier: Une froide vision du monde by Marc Perelman. In particular, Marc Perelman analysed the way in which Le Corbusier’s architectural ideas are a product of his political views and reflect his totalitarian way of thinking, therefore implying that his art cannot be separated from Le Corbusier as a person. Following the publication of these books, a heated debate on Le Corbusier’s politics was ignited, especially in France, despite the fact that documented evidence of his far-right views had already re-emerged in the 1980s. Thus, Le Corbusier was revealed to have been a supporter of fascism, a racist and an antisemite.
This conclusion infuriated certain people and they started defending Le Corbusier from these allegations. Popular counterarguments used are that he was a product of his time and is known to have had Jewish and left-wing friends. That does not erase the fact that he was surrounded by fascists and actively participated in writing hateful text about Jewish people. Further, by calling him a product of his environment, the concept of free will is neglected, and excuses everyone, including Le Corbusier, for their misdemeanours. It perpetuates the idea that nearly all crimes recorded in history were bound to happen since the individual does not have the power to rebuke the things that he learned at a young age later in life. Instead of being able to denounce Le Corbusier as a fascist, they instead list the possible reasons as to why he became a fascist. A more in-depth analysis of the events following the publication of the books can be found in the scholarly essay The Le Corbusier Scandal, or, was Le Corbusier a Fascist? (2017) by Simone Brott, published on the website of Brill.
At the end of the day, understanding the artist and their experiences can elevate an art piece as well as ruin it entirely. Their private life can paint a complete picture of the meaning behind their art, but it can also ruin it once the artists turn out to be diff erent than what you expected. Even if we are able to separate the art from the artist, should we? Or should we stop teaching about Le Corbusier or Picasso because of their actions instead? Should we as a society not speak of them anymore? Defi nitely not. They may have been awful people, but their infl uence remains integral to the development of modern art. The key to this is to fi nd the balance between teaching art in an objective manner and avoiding praising the people behind the artworks like gods. Accountability should be thrust upon the perpetrators, regardless of their status. Art is diffi cult to separate from the artist, because, at the end of the day, the artist remains a part of the art. //
SOURCES:
Brott, S. (2017). The Le Corbusier Scandal, or, was Le Corbusier a Fascist? Fascism, 6(2), 196–227. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116257-00602003
Cooper, D. (2022, June 3). Paul Gauguin | Biography, Tahiti, Vincent van Gogh, Artworks, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Paul-Gauguin
Gilot, F. (1964). Life with Picasso (First Edition). McGraw Hill.
Kirti, K. (2021, December 30). Salvador Dali’s Obsession with Nazism and Fascism - The Collector. Medium. https://medium.com/the-collector/salvador-dalis-obsession-withnazism-and-fascism-4769af704b96
Nayeri, F. (2019, November 29). More than a century after his death, has the time fi nally come to cancel Gauguin? The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/ paul-gauguin-national-gallery-me-too-art-harassment-assault-a9216801.html
